Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Analysis of Innovativeness, As A Determinant of Competitiveness of The Selected European Countries
Analysis of Innovativeness, As A Determinant of Competitiveness of The Selected European Countries
Analysis of innovativeness, as a
determinant of competitiveness of the
selected European countries
Article history:
Received: 28 October 2015
Sent for revision: 19 November 2015
Received in revised form: 5 February 2016
Accepted: 20 February 2016
Available online: 1 April 2016
1
University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Economics, Serbia, ddespotovic@ kg.ac.rs
2
University of Niš, Faculty of Economics, Serbia
3
University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Philology and arts, Serbia
1. Introduction
Innovation brings new products, processes, services, and functionality into the
production, the market, and the society, which consumers and organisations
find useful and valuable.
3. Research methodology
Based on the 2013 data on the values of the 12th pillar of the GCI, Innovation,
15 most innovative European countries (innovation leaders) and 15 least
innovative European countries (innovation learners) in 2013 were initially
selected.
Figure 2. 12th pillar of the GCI, GDP pc, and GCI ranking of European leaders
in 2013
Source: Authors, with reference to: The Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014, World
Economic Forum.
The data contained in Fig. 2 clearly show that the most innovative economies
are at the same time the most economically developed countries. Finland,
Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands are leaders in
innovativeness among the European countries. Fifteen European innovation
leaders are not big countries, in terms of the territory and the population.
Moreover, most of them are relatively small countries (with the exception of
Germany, France, and the UK). Each of these countries has less than 0.5
percent of the world population. It can be said that in addition to the old
European innovation leaders (Central Europe: Switzerland, Germany, the
Netherlands, and Northern Europe: Sweden, Denmark, Finland), in recent
times, Ireland, Iceland, and Portugal have found themselves in the group of
European top 15 innovative economies. Moreover, Finland, Sweden,
Denmark, and Ireland have in many areas reached or even overcome the
level of innovative capability of major European countries, especially Britain,
France, and Italy, whose economic situation was much more favourable in the
early 1980s than it is today (Atkinson & Ezell, 2012).
In the group of European innovation learners in 2013, alongside Ukraine,
Greece, Russian Federation, Cyprus, and Turkey, there are former socialist
countries of which one number today belongs to the EU28 (Poland, Latvia,
Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Croatia), as well as five Western Balkan
countries (Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Montenegro). All of them, with the exception of Poland and Turkey to some
extent, are also extremely behind other European countries based on the
level of competitiveness (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. 12th pillar of the GCI, GDP pc, and GCI ranking of European
learners in 2013
Source: Authors, with reference to: The Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014, World
Economic Forum.
In the second step, the selected countries were classified into 10 leading and
10 lagging countries (Fig. 4). After the decision to perform 10+10 analysis, the
last five countries (Luxembourg, France, Ireland, Iceland, and Portugal) were
excluded from the top 15 list.
Ten most innovative European countries were in the third stage of
development (innovation-driven stage). From the list of 15 lagging European
countries in terms of innovativeness, Russian Federation, Ukraine, and
Turkey, as major economies, and Montenegro and Cyprus, as micro states,
were not taken into account (Schwab, 2011; Dutta, 2012). Six countries from
For the purpose of classification of the selected countries into two or more
groups, based on similarities in innovative performance, cluster analysis of the
selected countries was carried out. The intention was to use these
multivariate techniques to show the depth of the gap between the formed
clusters of European innovation leaders and innovation learners.
Source: Authors, with reference to: The Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014, World
Economic Forum.
Among the countries within the clusters, there are extremely small differences
(Fig. 6).
Source: Authors, with reference to: The Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014, World
Economic Forum.
Due to this fact, the next step involves a simple comparison of the
characteristics of innovativeness of the selected groups of European
countries.
Source: Authors, with reference to: The Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014, World
Economic Forum
th
It is obvious that the gap in terms of the values of the 12 pillar, Innovation,
among the selected groups of countries in 2013, is high. The largest
discrepancies are related to University-industry collaboration in R&D and
Quality of scientific research institutions, and the least in relation to Availability
of scientists and engineers.
It can be noted that most European innovation leaders have shaped their
national innovation strategies. Finland, for example, has a national innovation
authority, Tekes, founded in 1983. VINNOVA is Sweden’s national innovation
authority, which began operation in 2003. Denmark established a National
Agency for Science, Technology, and Innovation in 2006. The Netherlands
has the agency Senter Novem, which was put into operation in 2004. The
Norwegian national authority, Innovation Norge, was established in 2004.
Ireland implements its innovation strategy through Forfás, founded in 1994
(Atkinson & Ezel, 2012).
Innovation policy should be oriented towards general and social challenges.
Center of attention should be sophisticated innovation, and not only
production of high technology products. The new model of cooperation
management in the field of international science, technology and innovation
With regard to the formed clusters and a big established difference between
them, the further course of the research includes the time dimension, and
analyses the trend of innovativeness in the observed groups of countries
(data available for a time period of ten years). Time series graphs for each of
th
the clusters are designed, based on the indicators of Innovation (12 pillar)
with average values per cluster, showing also the trend lines for each of the
clusters (Fig. 8).
Figure 8. Time diagram of the 12th pillar of the GCI for the selected countries
in the period 2006-2015
Source: Authors, with reference to: The Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007; 2007-2008;
2008-2009; 2009-2010; 2010-2011; 2011-2012; 2012-2013; 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016,
World Economic Forum
The estimated models of the trend, defined for the first and the second cluster
and represented in Fig. 8, indicate that innovativeness within the cluster
innovation leaders is at a much higher level in relation to the cluster
innovation learners, as has been shown by the cluster analysis. This also
confirms the hypothesis H1. However, as can be seen, the trend of
innovativeness within the cluster per years is not pronounced, so that
graphical representation corresponds to almost a straight line, at different
levels. It can be visually concluded that if similar trends continue in the future,
it is not realistic to expect that ceteris paribus the convergence of these lines
will occur, i.e. it is not realistic to expect that the gap among the selected
groups of countries, in terms of the level of innovativeness, will be reduced.
To check the existence of significant correlation between the observed series,
it is first necessary to test their stationarity. By applying the unit root test, it is
examined whether the time series are stationary or they have unit roots. For
these purposes, Dickey-Fuller test is used, and the results are given in Tables
1 and 2.
In this case, simple regression analysis is not suitable, which implies the need
for a more complex analysis, requiring the formulation of VAR model (to allow
for the analysis of dynamic relationships between variables).
VAR model is a framework for empirical analysis of mutual relations between
the two observed time series: cluster of innovation leaders (LEAD) and cluster
of innovation learners (LEARN). Time series are observed in the period 2006-
2015. The analysis is conducted using the Eviews 7 software package.
In order to test the existence of significant correlation between the observed
series (LEAD and LEARN), an empirical analysis resolves the dilemma of
whether these series are cointegrated time series, whether there is a
unidirectional causality between these series, and whether it is mutual. The
results in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that these are cointegrated time series, and,
therefore, there is a long-term correlation between LEAD and LEARN. As
these two series are cointegrated, the corresponding VAR model is tested
below.
Bearing in mind the results of Table 6, it is found that the use of VAR (2)
model is justified, and that 2 is the optimal number of lags. Specifically, all the
proposed criteria suggest the same thing – 2 as the optimal number of lags.
Based on the tested VAR (2) model, it is further examined whether there is
simultaneous interdependence between LEAD and LEARN, i.e. whether
LEAD causes LEARN, on the one hand, and whether LEARN causes LEAD,
on the other hand. Application of Granger causality tests with the selected
VAR model clearly shows that, between LEAD and LEARN, there is Granger
causality in both directions (Table 7). This confirms the statistical significance
of Hypothesis 2.
The existence of causality between LEAD and LEARN is clearly seen with
impulse response functions (Figure 9). LEARN response to LEAD one-
standard-deviation shock throughout the three-year period will be positive,
with an upward trend, during the observed period. LEAD response to LEARN
standard-deviation in the first year will be negative, and in other years it will be
positive with the upward trend.
Figure 10. Scatter diagram and linear form of interdependence of 12th pillar of
the GCI(innovation) and GDP per capita for the examined groups of countries
for the period 2006-2013
Source: Authors, with reference to: The Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007; 2007-2008;
2008-2009; 2009-2010; 2010-2011; 2011-2012; 2012-2013; 2013-2014, World Economic Forum
th
For a group of innovative leaders, the interdependence of variables 12 pillar
Innovation and GDP per capita, PPP expressed through simple linear
correlation coefficient, r = - 0.0556, is insignificant correlation in terms of
intensity. From the aspect of direction, it is the inverse correlation.
th
For a group of innovative learners, the interdependence of variables 12 pillar
Innovation and GDP per capita, expressed in purchasing power of the
domestic currency and shown through simple linear correlation coefficient, r =
0.485, is significant correlation in terms of intensity. From the aspect of
direction, it is a direct correlation.
Without going deeper into testing the statistical significance of the linear form
of interdependence, in the analysis below, due to the extremely small value of
the coefficient of determination for the first group of countries, the testing of
the hypothesis on the significance of linear interdependence was confirmed
only for the second group of countries (Table 8).
5. Conclusion
References
Takalo, T., Tanayama, T., & Toivanen, O. (2008) Evaluating innovation policy: a
structural treatment effect model of R&D subsidies, Bank of Finland Research
Discussion Papers, 7/2008, Finland.
World Economic Forum The Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007; 2007-2008;
2008-2009; 2009-2010; 2010-2011; 2011-2012; 2012-2013; 2013-2014, 2014-
2015; 2015-2016, Geneva.
World Economic Forum (2012) The Europe 2020 Competitiveness Report: Building a
More Competitive Europe, Global Competitiveness Network, Geneva.
Zahra S Jennings D and Kuratko D (1999) The Antecedents and Consequences of
Firm-level Entrepreneurship: the State of the Field, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 24(2):45-65.
Zubović, J. (2012). Human capital development as a tool for managing structural
changes-secondary education vs. structural changes. Managing Structural
Changes: Trends and Requirements, 412-426.